Lindsay Clancy's lawyer calls for juror to be removed for ‘refusing to listen to the law’ in tense exchange
Lindsay Clancy’s defence lawyer Kevin Reddington called for one juror to be removed from the case for ‘refusing to listen to the law’.
Deliberations in the Clancy case continued today (3 September) after Judge William issued a ‘Tuey-Rodriguez’ charge - also known as a dynamite charge - which is used in court to encourage a jury to come to a decision.
However, it doesn’t appear to have done the trick as the jury of nine women and five men are still yet to reach a unanimous decision.
After deliberating for several hours today, the jury once again handed Judge William Sullivan a note.
Advert
After reading the note, he then brought each juror in one by one and questioned them individually in private before reading out the rules of reasonable doubt once again, which explain that the highest standard of proof is required to convict someone in a criminal case.
Although the contents of the note were not read out by the judge, Reddington said in court that it reportedly stated that one of the jurors was not following the judge’s instructions.
Reddington then got irate as he called for the judge to remove this juror.
He said: “There’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt.
“And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them at the sidebar saying ‘can you listen to the law as I instruct you’ does not focus on the issue.
“The question was not sufficient enough. If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of the court it's a shame.
“It’s a real shame.”
Prosecuting attorney Jennifer Sprague disagreed with Reddington and said she believed the judge’s instructions were sufficient.
"There's no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to," she said.
Despite Reddington’s outburst in court, Judge Sullivan told the jury to resume deliberations without removing any of the jurors.
A short while later they were dismissed for the day and will resume deliberations tomorrow at 9am local time.
The case centres on Clancy, a former nurse, who killed her three children - Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan - in January 2023.
Her defence team has not denied that she carried out the killings but say she wasn’t criminally responsible at the time as she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and severe mental illness.
The prosecution argued that Clancy planned out the killings and knew right from wrong in the moment.
What happens now?
Deliberations will continue tomorrow, with the jury having several options available to them: not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter.
If the jury finds Clancy guilty, she will face life in prison.
If found not guilty, she’ll be sent to a psychiatric hospital for an undetermined amount of time.
Under Massachusetts’ law the jury must reach a unanimous decision, which is why is there is one juror holding things up, as Reddington suggested, then it will prevent a verdict bering reached.
If the jury cannot reach a verdict upon which they agree, Judge Sullivan can declare a mistrial.
When this happens, the case essentially goes back to the same status it was at before the trial began, meaning Clancy will be charged with three-counts of murder and held at a psychiatric facility.
Prosecutors would then have a couple of options open to them.
The most likely option in this case is that prosecutors would bring a new trial with a different jury.
They could also offer a plea deal to Clancy.
Secondly, and less likely here, prosecutors could also choose not to retry the case.
This option is typically chosen if the cost to retry is high and the risk of the same outcome is also high.
Clancy’s defence team would most likely lobby against a retrial.
Topics: Lindsay Clancy, US News, Crime, True Crime
Claire Reid